Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Feynman (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Richard Feynman. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Carl Feynman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a notable person. Previous, four year old AfD discussion was - I think - wrongly closed - as there was an overwhelming consensus for delete. The reasons haven't changed. Relation to a highly notable person is not enough. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no indication of notability and notability is not inheritable. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  20:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also Michelle Feynman for the same reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Coment 'Notability is not inheritable' doesn't mean the the children of notable people are automatically non-notable. The first AfD (which wasn't a vote) seems to have been confused over this point. Carl and Michelle Feynman have both made independent careers for themselves, and we have to judge on the basis of those, not their parentage. WP can sometimes be too quick to grasp at an obvious policy (even if this is them mis-interpreted) because it allows us to play &deity; with biographies and then congratulate ourselves about how much Serious Admin Bizness we've been doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply I think everyone understands that being related to a notable person is not grounds for deletion. The last AfD closure was based on two alleged published works by Carl Feynman. One of them was not by him (but by his father), and the other one is an out-of-print children's book he co-authored with two other people. He's not notable as an author. These claims were not properly examined. AfDs are not votes, but it's highly unusual for such an imbalance between opinions expressed and conclusion drawn. Before nominating, I tried to find material to improve the article. I couldn't. I cite non-heritability because I cannot think of any reason why someone would think this page would exist except for his father.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking about the books. As an MIT grad at Thinking Machines, I'd be surprised if his career on those grounds alone didn't make him notable for his contributions to that field alone (Thinking Machines is pretty heavyweight, after all). However I am rather surprised at how little he seems to have published, hence my not yet !voting Keep on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for emphasising Thinking Machines - I didn't realise it was considered so important (I don't know the field at all). Following up that lead: most of the extant pages of "notable people" mentioned in the Thinking Machines article actually have Thinking Machines pretty low on their list of achievements - that is, it seems to have been, as you say, an indicator of future success - rather than something very notable in itself. I know that's WP:othercrapexists, but it's worth reflecting on. I also found this, which appears to be a message from Carl Feynman describing his life up to the year 2000. Good on him for walking out of work that he felt morally uncomfortable with, but it does appear that he hasn't done much else notable, unless he's being modest. I'd much rather expand articles than delete them - and thought I'd found a great chance to improve one. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment he appears on eight pages of Genius by James Gleick, which with his own work almost reaches the notability bar, and might cross it someday. Stuff like Carl's facing Nobel-Prize photographers at age 3. Enh, I'll come back to vote delete after discussion closes. JJB 08:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep There are are ample reliable and independent sources out there to support a modest article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some of them, Colonel? I'd be happy to work them in if they're good sources. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, and looking at the above, group membership (even in important groups) or parents (even having one of the most notable physicists as a father) or books (especially a single children's book) do not impact notability. Only reliable, secondary sources covering a subject in depth impact notability. Those sources are not present, and from what I can find searching, do not exist, so the article cannot be sustained. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Having famous relatives does not make someone famous. Little else to warrant a keep. Sven Manguard  Talk  03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.